On Wed, April 30, 2008 5:20 pm, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Lan Barnes wrote: >> On Wed, April 30, 2008 3:43 pm, Mark Schoonover wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Michael J McCafferty >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Nevermind the cheap space... tell me about the power you saved ! >>> Power, and cooling. >>> >>> >> >> I'm confused (in Linux) on how this saves, since I would expect that >> throughput, memory, and context switching on VM boxen would _at best_ >> only >> equal running all those services on one box. What am I missing? >> >> Doesn't it add up to the same number of instructions per time uint, the >> same memory load, the same disk space (except VM should need marginally >> more for context switching)? > > Pretty much. However, power dissipation in a computer system is mostly > going to non-work activities. Losses in power supplies, simply keeping > the microprocessor clock grid running, keeping the disks spun up, etc. > > The differential between work and non-work is often not that high. > Consequently, making the system work harder moves the waste/useful ratio > in the correct direction. > > -a
This is nonsense to me in my just-running-multiple-services scenario. Why is flogging the box more a good thing if it's already running all the same services that it would under vm? -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
